New Subtypes Theory

[jason_m]

For a while, I was typing myself as 'LII'-'IEI.' However, I was a real skeptic; 'How am I 'LII?' This was a question I kept asking myself. As an LII, I should be something like Roger Penrose. We are both intelligent and driven to study the sciences, but we are essentially different. 'Penrose is like an LIE in some way. Is the theory wrong?' 'I am sort of like Roger Ebert, but am I really ILI? But I struggle with Se.' These were the questions I kept asking myself. Even the issues with duality: 'Katy Perry and Sandra Bullock are similar. Are they kindred to each other?' That's when I figured it out: each type is either a subtype that is close to either their quasi-identical or their extinguishment partner! Perry and Bullock are close because they are the quasi-identical subtype to each other ('ESE-SEE' vs. 'SEE-ESE')! Ebert and I are close because we are quasi-identical partners! Think about it. Consider LIE Milton Friedman and LII Roger Penrose; it is clear that both are not radically different. Both have similar interests, aptitudes, and communications styles, and both may even have similar duals. For instance, wouldn't both Penrose and Friedman make an outstanding actuary, an outstanding economist, an outstanding mathematician? Their duals might even both have some Fe and Fi! However, they are still different: one has a strong emphasis on logic and science, the other on business. One is therefore LII-LIE the other LIE-LII. This is the same thing for me and ILIs; I love philosophy, but I believe that it requires a logical approach. The critic would believe the exact opposite. This also explains why I don't fit traditional LII descriptions at all; they are always describing LII-LIEs - someone logical with a practical vein, but with more emphasis on logic than practice, while I combine logic with theory.

In any event, once you know which subtype you are, you know more what to look for in a dual. An 'ESI-ESE' (an ESI that is like the enthusiast) would be looking for an 'LIE-LII' (A practical person with an analytical side). Even for career: someone 'LII-LIE' would be looking for a way to apply logic to more practical matters (e.g., actuarial science, engineer), while an 'LII-ILI' would be looking for a theoretical job (e.g., computer scientist, philosopher). This has clearly been overlooked in most of the socionics literature, because it believes that extinguishment and quasi-identical types are exact opposites. However, looking at the types, I simply don't believe this at all. For instance, for any two types for the 'Researcher' quadra, you can usually find more similarities in the types than differences, and so I find it hard to believe that all Alpha NTs cannot work with all Gamma NTs. The difference then would be subtle, and most types would be able to work together to some extent. This would apply to all SFs, all STs and all NFs as well! In any event, I'd like to hear your opinion on this insight...

[jason_m]

I guess the implication would be: as LII-ILI, I am like LIIs, ILEs, but not LIEs at all... my dual is again like an ESE, SEI, and SEE, but not like an ESI at all! An LII-LIE would be like LIIs, ILEs, and LIEs, but is not like ILIs at all! And then SEE would then drop out as like their dual...

[mclane]

While you are onto something, I think I beat you to it. I believe I've completed Tcaudillg's dual type theory (but I haven't still quite pinned down all the specifics). People have three types in total (it's actually four, but the fourth is kind of mystical -- it belongs to the soul). It is very similar to the enneagram tritype theory. The first dual type is going to invariably be supervisee or beneficiary (so as a LII, it would be either IEE or SLI). This one would belong to the head. The second dual type will be benefactor or supervisor (in the case of LII, IEI or SLE). This one would belong to the gut. Whatever club you have in the first passes on to the second (so if you are a LII-IEE, then you must be LII-IEE-IEI). Dual types also have subtypes in the two-subtype theory just as the main type. Also, subtype switches around for the second type (if one is producing the other one has to be accepting and so on). So in the case of LII, it gives these possible combinations:

1. LII-Ti - IEE-Ne - IEI-Fe
2. LII-Ti - IEE-Fi - IEI-Ni
3. LII-Ti - SLI-Si - SLE-Ti
4. LII-Ti - SLI-Te - SLE-Se
5. LII-Ne - IEE-Ne - IEI-Fe
6. LII-Ne - IEE-Fi - IEI-Ni
7. LII-Ne - SLI-Si - SLE-Ti
8. LII-Ne - SLI-Te - SLE-Se

This certainly would give more flavour to the possible types a person can be, and also explains the differences between people of the same type. If you add the "soul type" to these, it gives even more combination to a total of 16 (this number again?) per main type. So, doing the math, people would fall in total in a possible combined type out of 256 possiblities.

[Muddy]

While you are onto something, I think I beat you to it. I believe I've completed Tcaudillg's dual type theory (but I haven't still quite pinned down all the specifics). People have three types in total (it's actually four, but the fourth is kind of mystical -- it belongs to the soul). It is very similar to the enneagram tritype theory. The first dual type is going to invariably be supervisee or beneficiary (so as a LII, it would be either IEE or SLI). This one would belong to the head. The second dual type will be benefactor or supervisor (in the case of LII, IEI or SLE). This one would belong to the gut. Whatever club you have in the first passes on to the second (so if you are a LII-IEE, then you must be LII-IEE-IEI). Dual types also have subtypes in the two-subtype theory just as the main type. Also, subtype switches around for the second type (if one is producing the other one has to be accepting and so on). So in the case of LII, it gives these possible combinations:

1. LII-Ti - IEE-Ne - IEI-Fe
2. LII-Ti - IEE-Fi - IEI-Ni
3. LII-Ti - SLI-Si - SLE-Ti
4. LII-Ti - SLI-Te - SLE-Se
5. LII-Ne - IEE-Ne - IEI-Fe
6. LII-Ne - IEE-Fi - IEI-Ni
7. LII-Ne - SLI-Si - SLE-Ti
8. LII-Ne - SLI-Te - SLE-Se

This certainly would give more flavour to the possible types a person can be, and also explains the differences between people of the same type. If you add the "soul type" to these, it gives even more combination to a total of 16 (this number again?) per main type. So, doing the math, people would fall in total in a possible combined type out of 256 possiblities.

Interesting, OP would probably be a #2 LII under this system.

This might explain my early observation of people seemly displaying the behavior of both types of an extinguishment pair. If this theory holds any weight, I would probably be an EII-Ne - ILE-Ne - ILI-Ni. I seem to display characteristics of both ILIs and ILEs, and it seems there might be some evidence for EII as my central type. You can check out my typing thread and see where my answers seem to shift between some that sound characteristic of ILI and others that sound characteristic of ILE.

[Saoirse]

I kind of followed OP's theory up until the dual part. Personally, I seem to use Fe way more than the average EII, and I do often end up as EIE on tests, and I have an ILI friend who uses Ne a ton and frequently tests as ILE. And there's another ILI friend I mistook for an ILE for a long time. But how do you think the dual subtype works? Would an EII-IEI like SLEs (regardless of SLE subtype) more than an EII-EIE would? So something like EII-EIE and SLE-SLI would be the most conflicting relationship, while EII-EIE and SLE-LSE could get along a little? I guess it makes sense to be seeking some form of our super ego.

However, there are a lot of people whose subtypes would seem very unclear to me under this system. E.g., I have many EII friends who just don't seem to use either Ni or Fe much. I could categorize them based on whether they are more introverted or extroverted, but that is so much broader than quasi-identity vs. extinguishment.
@mclane, your theory is interesting too. I'm curious as to how you came up with it/why you think this is the appropriate way to subtype? Also, what do you think determines/is determined by these subtypes?

[mclane]

@mclane, your theory is interesting too. I'm curious as to how you came up with it/why you think this is the appropriate way to subtype? Also, what do you think determines/is determined by these subtypes?

Observations of many people. I haven't quite figured out what it means, other than that people have more than one type.